Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #24

[Georgeo]

Catching up from todays testimony.

IMO
I know there are more witnesses to come but I am very disappointed in the way the state is presenting the evidence.

Todays main witness was a disappointment to me.

Couldnt tell if blood or not
Couldnt tell if they died at home or not
Couldnt tell if clhoroform knocked them out quick or not

My question. Then why put the jury and family through all this suspense. Just get to the main witnesses that can prove the case and be done with it.

Ive tried to be patient but am very disappointed and I think a lot of these witnesses could have been eliminated.

Very wishy washy. This case has not moved at the rate the Bosma case did. Too many witnesses here that are not adding barely any value to the crown's case IMO

 

[Kamille]

Catching up from todays testimony.

IMO
I know there are more witnesses to come but I am very disappointed in the way the state is presenting the evidence.

Todays main witness was a disappointment to me.

Couldnt tell if blood or not
Couldnt tell if they died at home or not
Couldnt tell if clhoroform knocked them out quick or not

My question. Then why put the jury and family through all this suspense. Just get to the main witnesses that can prove the case and be done with it.

Ive tried to be patient but am very disappointed and I think a lot of these witnesses could have been eliminated.

I don't think they had much choice because if they didn't call her, the defence likely would have. And might have been able to put a spin to it but suggesting that the Crown did not want the jury to know this information.

I was pretty disappointed in her findings though. She offered nothing that any of the sleuths on here couldn't have told the jury about the crime scene just based on the pictures that were released.

And IMO the Crown should have enlisted the services of someone a little more qualified with regards to the bone evidence. Unless more was said about them than was posted in the tweets.

MOO

 

[olivebpa1]

I don't think they had much choice because if they didn't call her, the defence likely would have. And might have been able to put a spin to it but suggesting that the Crown did not want the jury to know this information.

I was pretty disappointed in her findings though. She offered nothing that any of the sleuths on here couldn't have told the jury about the crime scene just based on the pictures that were released.

And IMO the Crown should have enlisted the services of someone a little more qualified with regards to the bone evidence. Unless more was said about them than was posted in the tweets.

MOO

She testified where the evidence lead her. May be disappointing but that's all we can ask of her. There were no bodies and not enough blood to say anything one way or the other. As for the bones i'm not willing to concede that she wasn't qualified enough and someone else could have determined they were human. It's important not to bend evidence to fit a story.

I agree the evidence was a bit disappointing, but i don't think that was her fault. Sometimes the evidence just doesn't tell the story we want.

 

[musicaljoke]

I think each Crown witness testifies to exactly what's needed of them.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Exactly. They give their expert interpretation of the evidence. They aren't psychic.

 

[Wondergirl]

You know I've tried to be objective about the reporter twitter coverage of this trial. As a Canadian I've followed several by twitter alone. At this time I have to say this is by far the worst coverage of any trial I've followed. Both via twitter and later in the written online news reports. We are not getting the feel for this trial at all...or a LOT of the information. A lull like this one is unheard of in the news game.

MOO

I completely agree.

 

[Wondergirl]

Sorry if this is a bit graphic for some!
Now, I'm still currently in school for Funeral Directing & Embalming but my experience is that even in a crematory, not all bones are burned down (i.e, the larger ones like the skull, femur, etc) Which is why ALL cremains are put through a grinder and ground down to a dust/gravel like substance. The bones that do "turn to ash" don't really. They'll just get really brittle and kind of flake. AFAIK the only time that all of the bones would be burned completely to ash, would be before they are completely formed. Now after saying this, this really only has to do with using a retort in a crematorium, not a barrel on a farm. Also, I do not claim to know more than the chief M.E

Wow.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I really had no idea. Makes you think.....

This really is a gruesome case.

It's worth remembering that a victim suffers their crime once, but loved ones and friends can re-live the crime 100's of times and be traumatized over and over.

Try not to stew in pain about what happened to this lovely family in Alberta. Regrettably they have joined a club that we can only imagine in our worst nightmares.

I just want to see justice. I just want this case to be over and for Garland to rot.

Jmo

 

[sublimemumma]

Anyone else notice how narrow his feet seem in the video?? He clearly did not need WIDE shoes.

The oversized everything suggests to me some kind of aversion to anything uncomfortable or restrictive (this is a common symptom in those on the autism spectrum or with sensory disorders). Autistic folks can also have difficulty with social interactions (eye contact), are often highly methodical, need to follow order and instructions exactly (book instructions on murder perhaps), and can become obsessed with things. (I'm speaking here from my own personal past experience working with autistic kids.)

My exact thoughts earlier. Their senses can be heightened causing them to not like anything tight. Even people with asbergers (not sure spelling) can have this or even people with just sensory disorders. It does look like he has big shoes on that he ties tightly to keep from falling off.

 

[Slebby]

I think each Crown witness testifies to exactly what's needed of them.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

I agree. They can't embellish, they can't side with the victims, they have to report according to the facts. That's what happened.

IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Cherchri]

Jadey's taking a break. Tough one today. Look forward to reading you guys' awesome posts later on.

Thanks a million for AGAIN keeping us all posted. I was unable to follow at all today and am so thankful to be able to sit and catch up quickly. Sterling work Jadey!

 

[garbagetweet]

I'm most interested in knowing if we'll find out if Douglas has a multiple personality disorder and as such Matthew is more than just an alias but rather Douglas believes that he is Matthew at times. If Matthew is an alternate personality it potentially leaves things open to the idea that Matthew committed the murders for Douglas. I wonder what the legal ramifications are in such a case?

 

[Kamille]

She testified where the evidence lead her. May be disappointing but that's all we can ask of her. There were no bodies and not enough blood to say anything one way or the other. As for the bones i'm not willing to concede that she wasn't qualified enough and someone else could have determined they were human. It's important not to bend evidence to fit a story.

I agree the evidence was a bit disappointing, but i don't think that was her fault. Sometimes the evidence just doesn't tell the story we want.

Oh I know it was not her "fault" that there just wasn't enough evidence in the home to determine what may have happened. Her testimony just seemed so vague. And actually, she was probably very professional and thorough on the stand with regards to what she did say and her opinions on the crime scene, although you certainly wouldn't know that from the tweets.

But I also didn't get the impression that she considered bringing in any outside help with regards to the bones. Again though, the tweets didn't indicate whether she was giving just her opinion or whether she was representing more than one person or a team of people who may have examined those bones.

Did she announce her findings on the manner and cause of death? Sigh...so much missing IMO. Maybe I'll check the online news reports to see if there is any more information.

MOO

 

[Cherchri]

I think we are privileged to convene here the way we do each day - so many insightful, bright, interesting individuals. So many incredible perceptions. Also a great deal of compassion oozing from posts. You're all awesome. Thank you one and all.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Oh I know it was not her "fault" that there just wasn't enough evidence in the home to determine what may have happened. Her testimony just seemed so vague. And actually, she was probably very professional and thorough on the stand with regards to what she did say and her opinions on the crime scene, although you certainly wouldn't know that from the tweets.

But I also didn't get the impression that she considered bringing in any outside help with regards to the bones. Again though, the tweets didn't indicate whether she was giving just her opinion or whether she was representing more than one person or a team of people who may have examined those bones.

Sigh...so much missing IMO. Maybe I'll check the online news reports to see if there is any more information.

MOO

I believe it said that she did have a forensic anthropologist look at the bones

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Kamille]

I believe it said that she did have a forensic anthropologist look at the bones

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Thanks...I just found that in the online CBC news...

Police also brought Brooks-Lim to the farm north of Calgary where Garland, 57, lived with his elderly parents.

There, she examined pieces of bone found in ashes gathered from a burn pile, but they had burned for so long and at such a high temperature that she was unable to say if the brittle and charred remains were human.

But under cross-examination, Brooks-Lim said she consulted with a forensic anthropologist who examined the fragments under a microscope.

"I believe at least one or two fragments she felt could have been from a child under five years and several fragments she felt may have come from an older adult or adults," said Brooks-Lim in citing a report prepared by Pamela Mayne Correia.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...knes-nathan-obrien-medical-examiner-1.3961535

Interesting that it was the defence who got that information out of her. :waitasec:

MOO

 

[Slebby]

I'm most interested in knowing if we'll find out if Douglas has a multiple personality disorder and as such Matthew is more than just an alias but rather Douglas believes that he is Matthew at times. If Matthew is an alternate personality it potentially leaves things open to the idea that Matthew committed the murders for Douglas. I wonder what the legal ramifications are in such a case?

If Matthew was part of a multiple personality it would not come about by way of stealing an identity. That is what DG did - he stole an identity from a dead kid and used it to pass himself off as someone else because he was on the lam from a criminal conviction related to his meth lab on his parents farm. There's nothing mentally ill about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[PrincessButtercup]

Thanks...I just found that in the online CBC news...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...knes-nathan-obrien-medical-examiner-1.3961535

Interesting that it was the defence who got that information out of her. :waitasec:

MOO

I wonder if the forensic anthropologist is slated to testify. The witnesses thus far are only testifying in their area of expertise. I think the forensic anthropologist would be a more credible witness regarding the bones.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[CentralAlberta]

Oh I know it was not her "fault" that there just wasn't enough evidence in the home to determine what may have happened. Her testimony just seemed so vague. And actually, she was probably very professional and thorough on the stand with regards to what she did say and her opinions on the crime scene, although you certainly wouldn't know that from the tweets.

But I also didn't get the impression that she considered bringing in any outside help with regards to the bones. Again though, the tweets didn't indicate whether she was giving just her opinion or whether she was representing more than one person or a team of people who may have examined those bones.

Did she announce her findings on the manner and cause of death? Sigh...so much missing IMO. Maybe I'll check the online news reports to see if there is any more information.

MOO

Did I misunderstand or did we not find out that there was blood evidence from all three victims at the house? To me that is a BIG revelation.

 

[PrincessButtercup]

The forensic anthropologist Pamela Mayne Correia specializes in the forensic examination of cremated human remains
https://www.ualberta.ca/arts/about/people-collection/pamela-mayne-correia

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Kamille]

The forensic anthropologist Pamela Mayne Correia specializes in the forensic examination of cremated human remains
https://www.ualberta.ca/arts/about/people-collection/pamela-mayne-correia

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Now compare that to the person brought in to the Tim Bosma trial... http://anthropology.utoronto.ca/people/faculty/tracy-rogers/

I think it would have made a difference had they "shopped around". But that's just my opinion.

 

[otto]

There has been a lot of controversy in the Chief Medical Examiner position for too long, so I'm not inclined to put a lot of faith in the current one. After skimming some of her testimony, I'm not exactly impressed. She said that it's quite possible the victims were dead at their home, but it's also possible they weren't. She said the ash in the barrels may be from a child, and may be from an adult. If she hadn't been told that a child and two adults were likely burned in the barrel, would she have been able to say that? No one needs a medical degree to say that there's so much blood at the first crime scene that the victims may have been mortally wounded, and the statement that they may have been alive at the Airdrie acreage seems self-serving, and to appease what police and prosecutors want to hear.

I wasn't surprised that the suspect's lawyer wanted some sort of clear answer as to whether the victims were alive when they left the first crime scene. It's unfortunately that the Chief Medical Examiner could not give a clear answer based on the amount of blood at the crime scene. Surely she would know that after losing X number of litres of blood, life is over, but she couldn't answer that question. Why not?